Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122206 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am unaware of Americans adding syllables to words, unless you are talking about people deep in the Bible Belt who will turn a two syllable word into a three syllable word almost every time and when pushed take it all the way up to four. Listen to a television evangelist from Georgia say "Jesus" some day. When the saliva starts to fly you will hear a good four or even five syllables there.
Now of course the British do tend to elide the occasional syllable. I often hear them talking about how an appliance needs a "bat tree". Hear baseball bats are usually made out of White Ash, or perhaps they are talking about the nocturnal animals that really don't get stuck in people's hair. Of course I have no idea what that has to do with a remote control.
Go ahead an use the word "Capiche". My prejudices need some loosening up now and then.
I offered 3 examples in the original post!

obliged -> obligated

oriented -> orientated

use -> utilize (yes the latter is a real word too but now used too often in the former sense esp by MBA types)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122207 Mar 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"40 years ago"?!?! It's been more like 204 years!
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
It is perhaps no coincidence that a former soldier, decorated for courage on the field of battle, was also the first scientist to suggest explicitly that human beings had evolved from apes (Philosophie Zoologique, 1809):
"Certainly, if some race of apes, especially the most perfect among them, lost, by necessity of circumstances, or some other cause, the habit of climbing trees and grasping branches with the feet,…, and if the individuals of that race, over generations, were forced to use their feet only for walking and ceased to use their hands as feet, doubtless … these apes would be transformed into two-handed beings and … their feet would no longer serve any purpose other than to walk."
http://www.macroevolution.net/jean-baptiste-l...
Or

Maybe we evolved from a common ancestor of this lovely bear

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122208 Mar 7, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. But it is accurately descriptive of how nature works. Get used to it.
I am not used to pathetic wishful thinking...

Only facts and science...real science
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122209 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Rusty. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. It is hard to find a place where evolution is not self evidence, besides in the brains of creatards.
Where has evolution been observed to occur??
What lab?

Where in nature?

Where in the fossil record??

Have I missed some excruciatingly NEW findings?

Like from a few seconds ago?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122210 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask for proof that Lucy was a pre-human ancestor.
Straw man. Any paleontologist will tell that Lucy (Aust. afarensis) may or may not be a direct common ancestor of modern humans. There were a number of hominid species around at the time of Lucy, and possibly others we have not yet found either.

What we KNOW is that there were, obviously, a bunch of ape-human intermediate species around following a radiation when some ancestral ape adapted to bipedalism. By intermediate I mean purely the objective sense of measurement - they had skeletal structures, dentitions, brain shapes, and so on, IN BETWEEN ape and human. Evolution predicts that during any ape human transition, intermediates should be found. They have been.

Creationism neither predicted them nor explains them. Especially when all the intermediates are lined up on a timeline as we see, exactly as evolution predicted, that the fossils are decreasingly classic 'apelike' and increasingly human from the period 4mya to now.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122211 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Or
Maybe we evolved from a common ancestor of this lovely bear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =6yZ4fktcuNkXX
Most certainly we did, some time within the last 140 million years...

Still looking into your pollen in the pre-cambrian claim.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122212 Mar 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man. Any paleontologist will tell that Lucy (Aust. afarensis) may or may not be a direct common ancestor of modern humans. There were a number of hominid species around at the time of Lucy, and possibly others we have not yet found either.
What we KNOW is that there were, obviously, a bunch of ape-human intermediate species around following a radiation when some ancestral ape adapted to bipedalism. By intermediate I mean purely the objective sense of measurement - they had skeletal structures, dentitions, brain shapes, and so on, IN BETWEEN ape and human. Evolution predicts that during any ape human transition, intermediates should be found. They have been.
Creationism neither predicted them nor explains them. Especially when all the intermediates are lined up on a timeline as we see, exactly as evolution predicted, that the fossils are decreasingly classic 'apelike' and increasingly human from the period 4mya to now.
No transitionals between ape and human have been found
Despite the romantic and ambitious claims

Creation has no need to predict intermediates---- you silly sausage

We are all one blood

And apes is apes...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122213 Mar 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most certainly we did, some time within the last 140 million years...
Still looking into your pollen in the pre-cambrian claim.
That was not the only example of pollen from the Precambrian either

One step at a time....

Its Friday night

Layla tov

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122214 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where has evolution been observed to occur??
What lab?
Where in nature?
Where in the fossil record??
Have I missed some excruciatingly NEW findings?
Like from a few seconds ago?
No, we have gone over all of these many times. You can keep denying that they exist, but then you will be breaking the Ninth Commandment when you do so. Lying for Jesus is still lying. If you want to win this debate Jesus, if he ever existed, would want you to try to win it honestly. To bad that you are too big of a fool to do that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122215 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not the only example of pollen from the Precambrian either
One step at a time....
Its Friday night
Layla tov
Yes, and I dealt with that so called pollen problem. Call me when you find pollen in an impermeable rock like shale.

And it is not Friday night. It is still Thursday.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122216 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No transitionals between ape and human have been found
Despite the romantic and ambitious claims
Creation has no need to predict intermediates---- you silly sausage
We are all one blood
And apes is apes...
And three strikes and you are out tonight. Duane Gish, one of the heroes of the creatards himself helped to identify a transitional fossil. And there have been quite a few transitional fossil species found. You are just full of shit tonight, aren't you Rusty?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122217 Mar 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No transitionals between ape and human have been found
Despite the romantic and ambitious claims
Creation has no need to predict intermediates---- you silly sausage
We are all one blood
And apes is apes...
You mean, no skeletal remains showing, objectively, characteristics that are measurably intermediate between classic ape and classic human norms?

You would have to be mad to claim such a thing.

And lets get our terminology straight. There is no shortage of intermediate and convergent forms in the right places in the fossil record. The argument over which particular ones were THE transitions from A to B will always be somewhat speculative.

But the presence of these intermediates is, to be precise, what evolution predicts and creationism neither predicted nor can explain.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122218 Mar 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What does a dog giving birth to a cat have to do with asking for scientific proof that a fossil is a pre-human ancestor? As I told you before, all you do is set up irrelevant distractions, because you are an ignoramus who has nothing to offer in terms of intelligent dialogue.
Actually your question is an irrelevant distraction, because there is no prediction that we prove "this particular fossil is ancestral to modern humans", nor any need for it.

What we expect to find in the fossil record are intermediate forms showing convergence as we go back through time. There is NO fossil of modern type human in million year old strata. But there ARE fossils of several species of hominid that are measurably intermediate in many respects between a classic ape and a modern human, and they get more "apelike" and less "humanlike", the further back we go.

Thus the existence of intermediate ape/hominid forms is not speculation. But ascertaining exactly which one would be THE ancestor of modern humans is probably always going to involve some speculation.

Thus you are asking a strawman question.

But the fact remains, that the intermediate hominids found are a prediction of evolution and explained by it, while they are neither predicted nor explained by creationism.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122219 Mar 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ChristineM... you're sinking lower and lower with each post.
Nope, just showing you that you are a clueless and deliberately ignorant fool of little intelligence and each time I do you go into foot stomping denial fits and eventually have to rely on childish mockery to raise your self esteem primary school level

You don’t like being shown up then you know what you can do

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122220 Mar 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a functioning brain, while you Evo morons contribute nothing of value.
The science of running by Jim Ryan.
Yes, I used to run 10 miles a day for about 2 years. For whatever reason, I started counting a cadence in my head, that matched the cadence of my footfalls and my breathing, which synced body and mind, helping me to get into a trance like state, allowing me to run mile after mile without stress and the last mile I could run almost flat out.
I know they teach different things today, but give my method a try, I think you'll like it. By the way, keep your eyes focused just in front of you, on the ground.
The cadence in running I used to use was, "one two three one", " one two three two", "one two three three", and keep going.
It's a 4 count breathing in and then a 4 count breathing out.
Happy running.
A functioning brain is something else you have not proven.

The very post to which I am responding indicates that – for example is Jim Ryan a scientist? Yet you claim he makes scientific proclamations.

Funny thing is that if you search Google for any phrase in your “quote”(and I use the term in the looses possible sense), the only exact matches are posted on topix by you. Tell me have you been manipulating someone’s work? Or at least try and prove you are not a liar by offering a citation.

As for having nothing to add, let me see what OS are you using on your computer when you post on topix? how about medicine, hospitals, universities, charities.

Only 7 percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. Whilst only 3.3 percent of UK’s Royal Society believed in God. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQ’s tend not to believe in God."

Seems most of the science, medicine and all that helps people seems to have come from atheists!!

So tell me what has your belief given us?

Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Behring Breivik, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, the IRA, NLFT in india, the KKK, the anti abortionists in the US and Caneda, and not forgetting those dealers in misery, the eastern European human traffickers. Going back a little further subjugation of native people in America, persecution and murder of Jews since christianity became legal, religious wars of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, persecution and murder of midwives and healers, under the banner witches. Persecution and murder of heretics, the crusades, persecution and murder and destruction of places of worship of pagans. Suppression of science, philosophy and education, execution of children of non believers and of children for playing not in a christian way

Can you think of anything else?

Funny that the babble teaches all these artistes as normal behaviour for your god and his worshippers. If you want verse number (because I know you have not read the babble) then I can offer them for you.

So we can assume from that that you consider genocide, subjugation, persecution, murder, and child abuse to have a higher value than progress, education and MRI scanners. That is entirely up you to sort out in your claimed functioning brain.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122221 Mar 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I have a lot more.
Eye color skin tone
From Jim Ryan
Areas of nations like Britain and Ireland have many more overcast days. The eyes and skin tone reflect the amount of light or lack thereof.
Once the skin and eyes have changed to low light, in more extreme times, get passed on.
However, those of lighter skin and eyes living in areas of a lot of light will be subject to more maladies.
I ask again is Jim Ryan who you quote often but see no need to cite his work. Is he a scientist qualified for provide such statements in a manner that can be used as educational material, or is he just a full of wind gas bag with personal opinions?

In his latest wowzer that you “quote”,(again no Google results so obviously not peer reviewed science) he does seem to have forgotten that at night it gets dark, in fact for a full 50% of the year it’s dark. He also forgets the fact that there are relatively few blue eyed people among the indigenouse populations of Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska where the whether conditions are not as conducive as that of the UK and it can be dark for half the year in one go.

He also seems to have forgotten that there are a large number of blue eyed people in the middle east, particularly around Turkey where blues eyes first appeared as a genetic mutation.

So what was that about overcast days?

And you say you have a functioning brain, try using it now and again.
Mugwump

UK

#122222 Mar 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask again is Jim Ryan who you quote often but see no need to cite his work. Is he a scientist qualified for provide such statements in a manner that can be used as educational material, or is he just a full of wind gas bag with personal opinions?
In his latest wowzer that you “quote”,(again no Google results so obviously not peer reviewed science) he does seem to have forgotten that at night it gets dark, in fact for a full 50% of the year it’s dark. He also forgets the fact that there are relatively few blue eyed people among the indigenouse populations of Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska where the whether conditions are not as conducive as that of the UK and it can be dark for half the year in one go.
He also seems to have forgotten that there are a large number of blue eyed people in the middle east, particularly around Turkey where blues eyes first appeared as a genetic mutation.
So what was that about overcast days?
And you say you have a functioning brain, try using it now and again.
Quick heads up 'one way or another=Jim Ryan'

He thinks he has overturned Newton , Einstein , Darwin etc with his new science.

But if you try to point out any issues he just goes of on one
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#122223 Mar 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
A functioning brain is something else you have not proven.
The very post to which I am responding indicates that – for example is Jim Ryan a scientist? Yet you claim he makes scientific proclamations.
Funny thing is that if you search Google for any phrase in your “quote”(and I use the term in the looses possible sense), the only exact matches are posted on topix by you. Tell me have you been manipulating someone’s work? Or at least try and prove you are not a liar by offering a citation.
As for having nothing to add, let me see what OS are you using on your computer when you post on topix? how about medicine, hospitals, universities, charities.
Only 7 percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. Whilst only 3.3 percent of UK’s Royal Society believed in God. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQ’s tend not to believe in God."
Seems most of the science, medicine and all that helps people seems to have come from atheists!!
So tell me what has your belief given us?
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Behring Breivik, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, the IRA, NLFT in india, the KKK, the anti abortionists in the US and Caneda, and not forgetting those dealers in misery, the eastern European human traffickers. Going back a little further subjugation of native people in America, persecution and murder of Jews since christianity became legal, religious wars of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, persecution and murder of midwives and healers, under the banner witches. Persecution and murder of heretics, the crusades, persecution and murder and destruction of places of worship of pagans. Suppression of science, philosophy and education, execution of children of non believers and of children for playing not in a christian way
Can you think of anything else?
Funny that the babble teaches all these artistes as normal behaviour for your god and his worshippers. If you want verse number (because I know you have not read the babble) then I can offer them for you.
So we can assume from that that you consider genocide, subjugation, persecution, murder, and child abuse to have a higher value than progress, education and MRI scanners. That is entirely up you to sort out in your claimed functioning brain.
All the founding fathers of science were Christian. Christians found the first schools and universities. Christians are responsible for most of the charities. Christians founded the basic medical clinic and hospital. Christians are the ones who establish the homeless shelters and soup kitchens and hospices and missionaries and prison outreach and numerous other agencies to help those less fortunate. You cannot even name a *single* similar atheist charity!

Now I must ask you, as an atheist, if Christianity - or any religion in general for that matter - has been so negative on humanity, how then do you explain its prevelance in evolutionary terms?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#122224 Mar 8, 2013
Prevalence.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#122225 Mar 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Behring Breivik, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, the IRA, NLFT in india, the KKK, the anti abortionists in the US and Caneda, and not forgetting those dealers in misery, the eastern European human traffickers.
Stalin was an atheist.

Although raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin was an atheist. Stalin had a complex relationship with religious institutions in the Soviet Union.[334] Historians Vladislav Zubok and Constantine Pleshakov have suggested that "[Stalin's] atheism remained rooted in some vague idea of a God of nature."[335]

During the Second World War Stalin reopened the churches. One reason could have been to motivate the majority of the population who had Christian beliefs. The reasoning behind this is that by changing the official policy of the party and the state towards religion, the Church and its clergymen could be to his disposal in mobilizing the war effort. On 4 September 1943, Stalin invited Metropolitan Sergius, Metropolitan Alexius and Metropolitan Nicholas to the Kremlin and proposed to reestablish the Moscow Patriarchate, which had been suspended since 1925, and elect the Patriarch. On 8 September 1943, Metropolitan Sergius was elected patriarch.

The CPSU Central Committee continued to promote atheism and the elimination of religion during the remainder of Stalin's lifetime after the 1943 concordat.[336] Stalin's greater tolerance for religion after 1943 was limited by party machinations. Whether persecutions after World War II were more aimed at certain sections of society over and above detractors is a disputed point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#ci...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min Truth is might 201,347
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 23 min Into The Night 16,112
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 45 min Joncy David 155
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 40,635
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr _Susan_ 151,418
LUCA and more REAL science 17 hr MIDutch 1
Dinosaurs and the Catholic Church 17 hr MIDutch 1
More from around the web